---
title: "Product Safety Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Alleged Lack of Familiarity with Tree Stands"
meta:
  "og:description": "Product safety expert witness' testimony about what he believes constitute best practices for a manufacturer of tree stands admitted"
  "og:title": "Product Safety Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Alleged Lack of Familiarity with Tree Stands"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Product safety expert witness' testimony about what he believes constitute best practices for a manufacturer of tree stands admitted"
---

# Product Safety Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Alleged Lack of Familiarity with Tree Stands

Posted on July 18, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler

Plaintiff, James Rowedder alleged a Field & Stream Stealth Climber Tree stand HEH01293 (“tree stand”) manufactured by Defendant Primal Vantage Company, Inc. (“Primal”) and sold by Defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a Field & Stream failed while Rowedder was using it and that he sustained injuries as a result. Plaintiff brought claims for (1) Negligence—Product Defect; (2) Breach of Warranty; and (3) Strict Liability.

Plaintiff’s proffered expert Rick Brenner was retained to testify about the standard of care and best practices for consumer products manufacturers, and, specifically, how Primal failed to meet these standards.

Defendants filed a motion to exclude opinions offered by Plaintiff’s proffered expert [Rick Brenner](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert%20(Rick)-Brenner/1543596).

## **Product Safety Expert Witness**

[Robert (Rick) Brenner](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert%20(Rick)-Brenner/1543596) is a recognized expert in consumer product safety, regulatory compliance, and quality management programs. He is president of Product Safety Advisors, a consulting firm that advises clients in the development and implementation of product safety and regulatory compliance programs including best practices in product design, risk assessment and failure mode analysis, performance and compliance testing protocols, supply chain risk, production oversight, quality management strategies, and related employee training programs.

His experience includes being president and CEO of Prime Resources Corporation for 12 years, an “importer, manufacturer, and distributor of consumer products sourced from multiple overseas factories” where Brenner had “direct oversight responsibility for Prime’s overseas sourcing business including the development of our standard operating procedures for product safety, risk assessment, compliance management, selection and vetting of vendors, factory oversight, correction actions, factory auditing . . . and product safety testing.” 

[Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Rick Brenner’s expert testimony.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1543596) 

## **Discussion by the Court**

#### **Brenner Did Not Lack the Requisite Qualifications**

Defendants argued Brenner was not qualified to offer such opinions because, despite his extensive experience with product safety and quality management practices, Brenner was not an engineer, not familiar with tree stands, and, _inter alia_, had not physically examined the evidence in this case.

The Court denied Defendants’ motion on this point and found Brenner qualified to offer opinions on the standard of care and best practices for consumer products manufacturers or importers considering his extensive experience as a “manufacturer, importer, and product safety professional” in his report.

#### **Brenner’s Opinions are Based on his Relevant Knowledge and Experience**

Last, Defendants argued Brenner’s opinions must be excluded because they are speculative, unreliable, and legal in nature. Namely, Defendants argued that Brenner’s testimony that Primal “did not conduct specific risk assessments under CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] and ISO [International Organization for Standardization 10377:2013 Consumer Product Safety Guidelines for Suppliers] standards” should be excluded because he admitted “that those are not mandatory standards for manufacturers of consumer products.”

The Court found that Brenner based his opinions regarding Primal’s alleged disregard for the safety of consumers on evidence—namely deposition testimony—adduced in this case.

Brenner did not purport to be a design or engineering expert and could not opine on whether the products or component parts of those products at issue here were defective. Nor could Brenner opine that any alleged failure on Primal’s part to meet the standards of care Brenner articulates rendered the products at issue defective. However, the Court held that Brenner will be able to testify, generally, as to what he believes constitute best practices for a manufacturer or importer of products such as Primal and how Primal did not live up to those standards considering the evidence adduced in this case and cited in his report.

## **Held**

The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Rick Brenner.

## **Key Takeaway:**

- The Court, citing Brenner’s extensive experience with product safety and quality management practices, decided he is more than qualified to testify about the standard of care and best practices for consumer products manufacturers, and, specifically, how Primal failed to meet these standards.
- Brenner based his opinions regarding Primal’s alleged disregard for the safety of consumers on evidence—namely deposition testimony—adduced in this case. The Court concluded that Brenner’s opinions are based on his relevant knowledge and experience.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/product-safety-expert-witness-testimony-admitted-despite-alleged-lack-of-familiarity-with-tree-stands/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/product-safety-expert-witness-testimony-admitted-despite-alleged-lack-of-familiarity-with-tree-stands/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/product-safety-expert-witness-testimony-admitted-despite-alleged-lack-of-familiarity-with-tree-stands/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/product-safety-expert-witness-testimony-admitted-despite-alleged-lack-of-familiarity-with-tree-stands/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/product-safety-expert-witness-testimony-admitted-despite-alleged-lack-of-familiarity-with-tree-stands/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)